65 So. 2d 704 - Washington v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably Fuller v. State (1959), Nichols v. State (1958)
70 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. State · Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Gonzalez · Cross v. State · Birmingham Baptist Hospital, Inc. v. Blackwell · American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Only review of rulings on trial with respect to matters of evidence are within the scope of the statute obviating the necessity of interposing seasonable objection * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““On the question of review and the necessity of preserving the point somewhere in the course of the proceedings, Judge Stone long ago in Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476, 484 , in quoting from the Wisconsin case of Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282 , 28 Am.Rep. 582 , which case held that it was the duty of the court to interfere when improper remarks of counsel had been made, said: We sum up, lest we be misunderstood. There must be objection in the court below, the objection overruled, and an exception reserved.’ The only enlargement of this rule is that where the argument is so greatly prejudicial that its harmful effect is viewed as ineradicable, it may be made a ground for a motion for a new trial. Cases, supra; Bell v. State, 227 Ala. 254 , 149 So. 687 ; American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479, 484 , 113 So. 507 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is argued for appellant that this court should adjudge that an exception was taken to said ruling because of a post-trial hearing before the presiding judge of that circuit, in which counsel for the defendant testified that exception was reserved, whereas the assistant solicitor and the court reporter testified to the contrary or that they had no recollection of such fact. After [the] hearing the judge stated that he was unable to determine whether an exception was or was not taken and that therefore he could not adjudge that the same was taken. This court is certainly no better advantaged to determine the question than was the trial court. The burden is on the appellant to establish the fact contended for and to show error, and in the state of the record here he has not discharged that burden.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.